WORKSHOP IN POLITICAL THEORY    AND POLICY ANALYSIS    Y673 Seminar     http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/seminars/spring2002_y673_syllabus.html

Spring 2002

Meets at 513 North Park, Seminar Room

Michael McGinnis

Revised Version: Jan. 17, 2002

This seminar is designed to introduce students to some examples of research on institutional analysis, development, and governance. Several of these research projects remain works-in-progress, as befits a seminar sponsored by an institution known as the "Workshop." Indeed, some of these research projects remain in a very early stage of development, for the reading list given below includes a few papers that have not yet been written. But we will also examine completed research projects, as well as some classic works directly relevant to the research program of institutional analysis. Although the substantive topics covered in these research projects vary widely, they all share a common focus on the origins and operation of institutions in particular empirical contexts or their broader roles in the constitution of order in human societies. Each participant in the seminar is also expected to pursue his/her own research project, to culminate in an original research paper to be presented in a mini-conference held at the end of the semester.

Two-Semester Sequence in Institutional Analysis and Development

This seminar is part of a two-semester sequence on Institutional Analysis and Development that has been taught each year by Workshop-affiliated scholars for more than two decades. Typically, these two seminars have been divided by level of analysis, with micro-level analyses covered in one semester and more macro-level analyses in the other semester. However, this year marks a bit of a departure in this particular institution. Last fall semester's course introduced students to the overall methodological approach of institutional analysis, including micro, macro, and, especially, cross-level analyses. As stated above, this semester's course covers diverse applications of this general program of research to particular research projects. Particular attention will be given to the current projects undertaken by the instructor, but other projects will also be considered.

Students may take either of these two courses separately for credit, or in either order. However, students taking the spring semester course who have not completed the fall semester version should have sufficient background in relevant material in political science, public policy, economics, or related fields. The reading list given below includes a few background readings that are particularly relevant to this course material, but there will be other works that students need to consult on their own. In addition, students and other seminar participants will have to pursue those literatures of most direct interest to their own research project. Please contact the instructor if you have any questions about additional readings.

This course was originally listed under the title Conflict and Governance, which was also the title for the Spring 2001 version of this seminar. Many of the same topics will be covered this semester, but a more generic title was deemed appropriate this time around. (Note that consideration of conflict is implicit in this semester's title, for if there is no conflict then there is no need to concern oneself with governance.)

Seminar Rules and Expectations

Participants in this seminar will soon discover that it is a bit unusual. It can be a large group, including post-docs, visiting scholars, and other faculty members in addition to the usual arrangement of instructor and graduate students. Discussion can be pretty wide-ranging, and may tend to be dominated by the more senior members of the group. However, be assured that your instructor will provide students with plenty of opportunities to participate. For exactly this reason, students enrolled for credit will be asked to comment upon the assigned readings in bi-weekly memos. Be warned that the instructor uses these memos to help organize the day's discussion, and that authors of these memos should come to class fully prepared to discuss the topics raised in their memos.

Any seminar participant is welcome to introduce any relevant topic for further discussion. The instructor will, however, use his discretion as discussion leader to direct discussion to focus on particular topics, especially those covered in the assigned readings. In addition, all seminar participants are encouraged to use the distribution list to make more extensive comments or suggestions for further analysis.

Memos. In order to facilitate class discussion, students will be asked to submit short memos commenting on some important aspect of that week’s readings or on other issues of basic concern (including exploring ideas for their research paper). Please do not summarize the readings! Instead, move directly to making some important point, worthy of further discussion in class. The class will be divided into two groups, with each group assigned memos for alternating weeks. (Details will be worked out during class.) Students are encouraged to keep their comments in these memos (NOT papers!) brief and to the point. Each should be able to be printed on a single page (with a reasonable font size!). An e-mail distribution list will be set up, and students will be expected to read comments written by their classmates before class begins. It has been our experience that weekly memos greatly enhance the quality of class discussions by giving students an opportunity to articulate their responses. Clearly, these memos must be completed and distributed before the time class meets; specific deadlines will be negotiated by the class as a whole.

Mini-Conference Paper. Each student (and other seminar participants) will complete an original research paper for presentation at the Mini-Conference, to be held Saturday, April 27, and Monday afternoon, April 29. Someone other than the author will be assigned the responsibility to present and comment on each paper. The author will have an opportunity to respond to these comments, and the remainder of the time will be available for general discussion of that paper and the more general issues it may raise. All comments and criticisms should be constructive, and each author should be concerned about how to revise and improve the quality of his or her paper after the seminar ends, with the goal of moving the work to publication. The Mini-Conference is a way of learning to participate in an intellectual community and coming to appreciate the general coherence of intellectual discourse. Since copies of each paper will be distributed to all Mini-Conference participants, papers must be completed well in advance. We give students two options: (1) If you turn in your completed paper by the due date (April 17), in class, the Workshop will pay all photocopying costs. (2) If you want an extra week, you will have to submit 30 copies by class time, April 24. (These deadlines may be revised slightly, depending on later developments and/or negotiations.) Students should also expect to be asked to submit abstracts or brief status reports on their mini-conference paper project at various times throughout the semester.

Grading. Those seminar participants who have enrolled in this course for credit may be interested in knowing how their final grades will be determined. This evaluation will be based on two equally-weighted components: (1) the quality of a student's mini-conference paper and (2) the quality of that student's understanding of the assigned course material, as evidenced in memos and in comments during class discussion. Please contact the instructor if you have any further questions.

Required Texts

Each of the following books has been ordered at the IU and TIS bookstores. (If possible, a copy of each textbook will be put on reserve in the Workshop library.) Any edition of Hobbes, Tocqueville, or The Federalist is acceptable.

Anderson, Mary. 1999. Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – Or War. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

de Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books.

de Tocqueville Alexis. 1988. Democracy in America. (Vol. I and II). New York: Harper.

Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, and James Madison. 1992. The Federalist. New York: Charles E. Tuttle.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, or the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

McGinnis, Michael, ed. 1999. Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville's Challenge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Young, Oran R., ed. 1997. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

---

Schedule of Seminar Topics and Reading Assignments

This schedule is subject to revision and adjustment over the course of the semester. In particular, several papers listed as “TBA” will be distributed at the appropriate time (i.e., after they have been written!). Also, it is to be expected that several items not included on this list will be distributed or discussed in class. Details of any changes will be announced in class or by e-mail distribution list.

Copies of assigned readings not included in the textbooks will be distributed in class a week or more before their due date. This list includes some background readings that may not be familiar to those participants who did not complete the fall semester version. A few optional readings are also included, but it is simply not possible to include all of the important readings relevant to any of these topics. Seminar participants are encouraged to make use of the Workshop library and other resources to begin to explore the ever-expanding inter-disciplinary literature on institutional analysis.

Week 1. (Jan. 9) Introduction to Seminar

Our first task is to come to a common understanding concerning the rules under which our discussions will be governed during this seminar. Since some of the students enrolled for this course are unable to meet during the originally scheduled time, we will need to select another time to meet. The background readings given below should help introduce new participants to the basic IAD framework that will be employed in this course. The short CIDER paper (to be distributed during class) will serve to organize our initial discussion of how these tools of analysis can best be directed to answer specific research questions. All seminar participants will be encouraged to start thinking about their proposed mini-conference paper topic in these terms, by specifying the particular research question they intend to address.

Required Reading:

McGinnis, Michael. 2002. "Identifying Research Questions for Institutional Analysis: The DECIDER Classification Scheme," working paper, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (revised version posted at http://php.indiana.edu/~mcginnis/cider.doc )

Background Reading:

McGinnis, Michael, ed. 1999. Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Series foreword and introduction.

"The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework," Appendix A in Elinor Ostrom, Clark Gibson, Sujai Shivakuman, and Krister Anderson, Aid, Incentives, and Sustainability: An Institutional Analysis of Development Cooperation, Final Report for Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, December 11, 2001, 229-259.

Week 2. (Jan. 16) Conflicting Perspectives on Conflict and Governance

Coping with conflict (both internal and external) is one of the primary tasks facing governments or more informal modes of governance. All communities must develop institutions that facilitate the resolution of disputes before they escalate to widespread violence. The responsibility of protecting the community against external dangers is delegated to agents who may abuse this position by manipulating fears of exaggerated dangers or by instigating real dangers by their own actions. Communities have devised diverse patterns of governance to cope with many different forms of conflict, and new patterns of governance are in the process of development. (For example, the constitution of international order may be fundamentally transformed by such processes as the steady expansion of democratic polities, the growth of the EU as a new form of European sovereignty, and the establishment of international criminal jurisprudence.) Although the institutions of domestic politics and international relations are typically considered separately, in this seminar we will use the tools of institutional analysis to examine connections between internal and external conflict, at various levels of aggregation.

We begin our discussions by evaluating two classic perspectives on the problems of conflict and governance. Hobbes's Leviathan is especially important for its depiction of the logic of methodological individualism, a mode of analysis which underlies institutional analysis, and the field of modern political economy more generally. More problematically, Hobbes concludes that unitary sovereignty is the only feasible form of constitutional order. In sharp contrast, the system of constitutional order in the United States of America strives to make constructive use of conflict, rather than trying to suppress it entirely. Selections from The Federalist lay out the basic decision problem confronting the founding generation. Pay particular attention to the first nine papers, which constitute a remarkably sound introduction to realism in international relations theory. (Yes, I realize Hobbes is more commonly associated with international realism, but all this will be explained in class.) Although most of The Federalist critically examines the details of the proposed constitution, these early papers set the stage by placing this new, relatively weak nation in the context of a threatening environment. Vincent Ostrom highlights the importance of seeing institutional analysis and design as a work of art, in the sense of creative combination and recombination of fundamental themes and goals. He also explains how reliance on Hobbes' view of unitary sovereignty has lead to such subtle problems as the phenomenon of crypto-imperialism in newly independent countries. Finally, the introduction to Tocqueville’s classic Democracy in America sets forth the basic problem of institutional design underlying the American experiment in constitutional order. We will read the remainder of this foundational book later in the semester.

Required Reading:

Hobbes, Thomas. 1992. Leviathan. Introduction, author’s introduction, Chapters 1-7, 10-19, 22, 24, 29-31, 39, 43, review and conclusion.

Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, and James Madison. The Federalist. Papers: 1-11, 14-17, 24-26, 39-40, 51, 53, 55, 58, 70-73, 78.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1988. Democracy in America. Author’s Introduction.

McGinnis, Michael, ed. 1999. Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Chapters 7-8 and 16.

    Ostrom, Vincent. "A Forgotten Tradition: The Constitutional Level of Analysis."

    Ostrom, Vincent. "Cryptoimperialism, Predatory States, and Self-Governance."

    Ostrom, Vincent. “Artisanship and Artifact.”

Week 3. (Jan. 23) Coping with Pervasive Insecurity

Although Hobbes presumed that material progress is impossible in the absence of a secure legal order, Hernando de Soto's influential work demonstrates that many peoples in insecure settings throughout the world have managed to cope remarkably well. Still, tenure insecurity greatly limits their ability to achieve further advances in economic development. Shui-Yan Tang makes a similar point in his analysis of the positive contribution of informal credit markets. Elinor Ostrom makes a broader point concerning the vital importance of co-production in sustainable development, and this point serves as the point of departure for the proposed research project laid out by McGinnis, Bickers, and Shoup. This paper is our first example of research in the very early stages of development, and we look forward to hearing your reactions to this draft proposal. (The background readings elaborate on the fundamentally important concept of property rights, which is hardly as simple as it usually assumed).

Required Reading:

de Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.

McGinnis, Michael, ed. 1999. Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Chapters 14-15.

    Tang, Shui-Yan. 1995. "Informal Credit Markets and Economic Development in Taiwan."
    Ostrom, Elinor. 1995. "Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development"

McGinnis, Michael, Kenneth Bickers, and Brian Shoup, 2002. "Participatory Production of Public Services in Insecure Settlements: Squatters, Refugees, and Resettlement in Comparative Perspective," draft working paper, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. (available at http://php.indiana.edu/~mcginnis/pppsis5.doc )

Week 4. (Jan. 30) Patterns of Resource Management and Conflict (Part I)

Conflict over resources has been common throughout history, but so has cooperation in resource management. Before the events of Sept. 11, one of the frequently discussed dangers was the prospect of "water wars" in the near future, but this week's readings demonstrate that water resource management has also been a source of creative forms of cooperation. The first two readings illustrate how some forms of conflict can be put to constructive use, while other forms of conflict processes can prove to be very destructive. The first five chapters from Polycentric Governance and Development cover classic and recent Workshop research on water management that should provide additional perspective on current debates over "water wars." (You may want to re-read the introduction of this volume to help put these readings in context.) Pay particular attention to the ways in which water management institutions have been designed to deal with (and make constructive use of ) conflict. Finally, the McKean paper is an essential corrective to the general presumption that common property equals common pool, and other confusions of property rights, types of goods, and the nature of the actors that own and manage their use. 

Required Reading:

Follett, Mary Parker. 1940. “Constructive Conflict.” In Dynamic Administration, eds. H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. 30-49.

Boulding, Kenneth. 1963. “Toward a Pure Theory of Threat Systems.” American Economic Review, 53 (May): 424-34.

McGinnis, Michael, ed. 1999. Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Chapters 1-5.

  Ostrom, Vincent. "Water and Politics California Style."

  Ostrom, Vincent and Elinor Ostrom. "Legal and Political Conditions of Water Resource Development."

  Blomquist, William and Elinor Ostrom, "Institutional Capacity and the Resolution of a Commons Dilemma."

  Ostrom, Elinor "Design Principles in Long-Enduring Irrigation Institutions."

  Schlager Edella and Elinor Ostrom, "Property Rights Regimes and Coastal Fisheries: An Empirical Analysis." 

McKean, Margaret A. 2000. "Common Property: What Is It, What Is It Good for, and What Makes It Work?" in Clark C. Gibson, Margaret A. McKean, and Elinor Ostrom, eds., People and Forests. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 27-55.

Week 5. (Feb. 6) Patterns of Resource Management and Conflict (Part II)

This week's assigned readings address aspects of conflict and cooperation over water resources, ranging from the lofty principles of international law to the mundane details of traditional, indigenous responses to similar problems at a local level. In addition, we will examine a preliminary examination of linkages across conflicts at different levels of aggregation, involving local resource conflicts, national political contests, and international wars. We will return to this latter topic later in the semester.

Required Reading:

Wolf, Aaron T. 1998. "Conflict and Cooperation Along International Waterways," Water Policy, 1 (2): 251-265. Available online at http://terra.geo.orst.edu/users/tfdd/documents/conflict_coop/ (accessed 2/12/01)

Knox, Anna, Brent Swallow, and Nancy Johnson. 2001. "Conceptual and Methodological Lessons for Improving Watershed Management and Research," CGiAR System-wide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights, CAPRi Policy Brief Number 3 (February 2001). Available online at http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/polbrief_03.pdf

Benvenisti, Eyal. 1996. "Collective Action in the Utilization of Shared Freshwater: The Challenges of International Water Resources Law," American Journal of International Law, Vol. 90: 384-415. (available from J-store or Lexis-Nexis).

Young, Oran, ed., 1997. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. Chapters 6-7.

    Bernauer, Thomas. "Managing International Rivers.”
    Valiante, Marcia, Paul Muldoon, and Lee Botts. "Ecosystem Governance: Lessons from the Great Lakes."

Wolf, Aaron T. 2000. "Indigenous Approaches to Conflict Negotiations and Implications for International Waters," International Negotiation (December 2000). Available online at http://terra.geo.orst.edu/users/tfdd/documents/indigenous/index.html

McGinnis, Michael. TBA (Tentative title: "Institutional Linkages Between Distinct Levels of Conflict").

Optional Reading:

"Water Conflict Chronology." September 2000. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Available online at http://www.worldwater.org/conflict.htm )

Week 6. (Feb. 13) The American Experiment

This week we examine the first part of a classic work that has deeply influenced and inspired much of the research conducted by Workshop scholars. Note especially the way the basic categories of the IAD framework can be related to Tocqueville’s comparative evaluation of the factors most responsible for the success of democracy in America. Also, pay attention to Tocqueville’s discussion of the three races in North America, for his analysis shows how this democratic order was based, at least in part, on conflict towards other groups denied a chance to participate in this democracy. We also begin to examine Vincent Ostrom's evaluation of and reaction to Tocqueville's analysis of American democracy.

Required Reading:

de Tocqueville Alexis. 1988. Democracy in America. Vol. I.

Ostrom, Vincent. ed. 1999. “Problems of Cognition as a Challenge to Policy Analysts and Democratic Societies.” In Michael McGinnis, ed., Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Also translated into Chinese.) R93-15. Chapter 17.

———. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge. Chapters 1-3.

Week 7. (Feb. 20) Dilemmas of Sustaining Democratic Governance

In his second volume, Tocqueville expresses deep concerns about the long-term viability of democracy, especially in the American context. Vincent Ostrom uses this challenge as a point of departure for his own wide-ranging examination of the constitution of order in human societies.

Required Reading:

de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1988. Democracy in America, Volume II.

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge. Chapters 4-8.

Week 8. (Feb. 27) Beyond Methodological Individualism: Towards a Complementary Mode of Analysis at the Macro-Level

This week we turn to the question of what cultural pre-conditions are necessary if democratic forms of self-governance are to survive over the long haul. We will examine draft chapters of Vincent Ostrom's current book project on Tocquevillian Analytics in which he endeavors to lay out a methodological communalism that can complement the methodological individualism that underlies the field of modern political economy as currently construed. Li Mei's paper (from an earlier mini-conference) on the prospects for democracy in Confucian societies is used as an example of this mode of analysis.

Required Reading:

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge. Chapters 9-11.

Ostrom, Vincent. Tocquevillian Analytics, draft manuscript.

Mei Li, "Confucian Teaching and Democratic Citizenship," working paper, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis.

Week 9. (March 6) Evolution of Rules and Legal Systems

Tocqueville listed judicial institutions as one of the most important contributors to the success of American democracy. In this week, we begin a preliminary exploration of the nature of adjudication as a process of conflict resolution. In the first part of a long article, Landes and Posner examine the “nature of the good” provided by adjudicators, and conclude that this good need not always be provided by public authorities. Friedman discusses an historical example of the private enforcement of law (in Iceland). Also, we read several selections from Berman’s classic depiction of the origins of the polycentric Western tradition of law. From all of this we take an overall view of the remarkable diversity of legal systems, and the ways in which different legal institutions both compete with and complement each other. We also examine preliminary research on how the evolution of law might be modeled as a form of institutional development. Since this last project was inspired by the instructor's participation in an ongoing discussion group on evolutionary analysis in the social sciences, it may include contributions by other participants in that working group. (The background reading covers the basic analytical framework upon which this latter research builds).

Required Reading:

Landes, William M. and Richard A. Posner. 1979. “Adjudication as a Private Good: Part I. The Market for Judicial Services.” Journal of Legal Studies 8:234-59.

Friedman, David. 1979. “Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case.” Journal of Legal Studies 8:399-415.

Berman, Harold J. 1983. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press. Preface, Introduction, Chapter 11-12, 538-58.

McGinnis, Michael. TBA (Tentative title: "Choice and Selection in the Evolution of Law")

Background Reading:

Crawford, Sue E. S. and Elinor Ostrom. 1995. "A Grammar of Institutions." American Political Science Review, 89(3) (Sept.): 582-600. Reprinted in Michael McGinnis, Polycentric Games and Institutions.

SPRING BREAK

Week 10. (March 20) Towards Models of Multi-Level Governance

Ever since the classic article by Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren, it has been a standard article of faith among Workshop-affiliated scholars that polycentricity is the most desirable form of constitutional order. Only recently have we begun to investigate this claim more systematically. McKinnon and Nechyba discuss in some detail the relative merits of governance institutions at different levels of aggregation, and Hooghe and Marks explicitly compare polycentric and federal systems. Finally, the working paper by the instructor will lay out a comparative research project that extends the game-theoretic concept of the "core" to alternative forms of constitutional order. This project is also in its very earliest stages.

Vincent Ostrom, Charles M. Tiebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” American Political Science Review 55 (December): 831-42. (Workshop Reprint R61-1; Reprinted in Michael D. McGinnis, ed., Polycentricity and Local Public Economies and in Vincent Ostrom, The Meaning of American Federalism).

McKinnon, Ronald and Thomas Nechyba. 1997. "Competition in Federal Systems: The Role of Political and Financial Constraints," in John Ferejohn and Barry R. Weingast, eds., The New Federalism: Can the States be Trusted?, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 3-61.

Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks. 2001. "Types of Multi-Level Governance," Working paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, June 2001.

McGinnis, Michael, TBA (Tentative title: "Polycentricity and the Core of Governance").

Week 11. (March 27) The European Experiment

This week we examine remarkable recent developments in Europe, where a new form of constitutional order is being crafted and revised before our very eyes. Our question for discussion will be: just what is this European Union anyway?

Required Reading:

Hix, Simon. 1999. The Political System of the European Union. New York: St. Martin's Press. Chapters 1 and 13.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chapter 1.

Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks. 2001. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Chapters 1 and 2.

Siedentop, Larry. 2001. Democracy in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1 and 5.

Optional reading:

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power fro Messina to Maastricht. Chapters 2 and 7.

Week 12. (April 3) Emerging Patterns of Global Governance

Remarkable changes have also been occurring in patterns of governance at the global level. The Young volume focuses explicitly on changes related to the environmental concerns. (The background reading provides some basic information for those seminar participants who are not already familiar with global environmental issues.) Once we recognize that today’s system of international law evolved out of the same complex mixture of legal jurisdictions that Berman examines, it becomes difficult to dismiss it so cavalierly. There is much more to international law than the interactions of sovereign states. Nadelmann examines the ways in which moral principles can serve to mobilize regimes that prohibit certain types of previously acceptable practices; his analysis is particularly subtle in its blending of moral, market, and power considerations. In another very preliminary draft, the instructor lays out some observations about recent trends in international law, drawn primarily from his experience in teaching an undergraduate course on this subject. It's a big topic, one that cries out for more systematic analysis.

Required Reading:

Young, Oran., ed. 1997. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. Chapters 1-5, 8-10.

Nadelmann, Ethan A. 1990. “Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society.” International Organization. 44:479-526.

McGinnis, Michael. TBA (Tentative title: "Changing Patterns of Political Contention in International Law").

Background Reading:

Porter, Gareth, Janet Welsh Brown, and Pamela S. Chasek. 2000. Global Environmental Politics, Boulder: Westview Press. Chapter 3.

Week 13. (April 10) International Responses to Contemporary Conflicts

Another major international problem concerns how the international community should respond to widespread problems of conflict. A complex system of governmental and non-governmental organizations has arisen to distribute humanitarian aid to people displaced by conflict, famine, or other disasters. Mary Anderson's book is an often-cited work that surveys the ethical problems associated with such assistance. The second half of that book examples particular examples of small-scale projects that may, in the long run, be more important than more dramatic programs that grab the headlines. Similar methods are discussed in the reading from the web-based "toolbox" on indigenous forms of conflict management. The remaining papers cover some of the instructor's recent research on these topics. The paper presented at the 1997 Peace Science Society meeting includes a suggested research agenda that, I must sadly confess, remains yet to be implemented. Perhaps our discussions will help re-start that research project.

Required Reading:

Anderson, Mary. 1999. Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – Or War.

"Indigenous Conflict Management Mechanisms," in A Toolbox to Respond to Conflicts and Build Peace, Creative Associates International, Inc. (CAII). Available online at http://www.caii-dc.com/ghai/toolbox4.htm (undated; accessed December 30, 2001).

McGinnis, Michael. "NGO Response to Complex Humanitarian Emergencies: A Preliminary Analysis," paper presented at the Thirty-First North American Meeting of the Peace Science Society (International), Indianapolis, Indiana, November 20-23, 1997.

———. 2000. “Policy Substitutability in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies: A Model of Individual Choice and International Response.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(1) (February): 62-89.

Week 14. (April 17) Models of Conflict and Conflict Management

In this week we examine how formal models can be used to help us understand processes of conflict escalation and conflict management. Hirshleifer's article challenges economists (and related scholars) to explicitly incorporate choices for coercion into their models and policy analyses. As Mary Anderson's book made clear, some actors directly benefit from the continuation of war, and their interests must be addressed in some manner. De Figueiredo and Weingast model a process in which ethnic conflict is driven by desperate efforts by a leader to stay in power and by individual citizens to stay alive. On the other hand, Posen demonstrates how conflicts can arise even if neither side seriously intends to inflict harm on the other, via the process known in the IR literature as the “security dilemma.” Most conflicts are driven by a complex mixture of both goal-directed behavior and unintended consequences, as illustrated in the instructor's overview of conflict of the Horn of Africa. The final paper represents the instructor's initial efforts to draw upon the spatial voting literature to model peace negotiations as a process significantly similar to the construction of a coalition government in a parliamentary democracy.

Required Reading:

Hirshleifer, Jack. 1994. “The Dark Side of the Force.” Economic Inquiry 32:1-10.

Posen, Barry R. 1993. “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict.” In Ethnic Conflict and International Security, ed. Michael E. Brown, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapter 6.

de Figueiredo, Jr., Rui J. P. and Barry R. Weingast. 1999. “The Rationality of Fear: Political Opportunism and Ethnic Conflict.” In Civil Wars, Insecurity, and Intervention, ed. Barbara F. Walter and Jack Snyder, New York: Columbia University Press. 261-302.

Michael McGinnis, "Conflict Dynamics in a Three-Level Game: Local, National, and International Conflict in the Horn of Africa," Thirty-Third North American Meeting of the Peace Science Society (International), The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 8-10, 1999. Available online at http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/publications/w9919mcginnis.pdf

———. TBA (Tentative title: "A Spatial Model of Peace Coalitions").

Week 15. (April 24) Indigenous Methods of Conflict Management

We conclude with an examination of a few related research projects that remain in the early stages of planning. These projects address, in different ways, the same basic question: what, if anything, can the techniques of institutional analysis bring to improve our understanding of the institutional arrangements by which communities throughout the world have dealt with their own conflicts throughout history? Workshop-affiliated scholars have already investigated the conditions for successful community management of common-pool resources, and we hope that similar methods might be applicable to broader issues of conflict management.

CERIC Profile and Proposed Framework for the Management of Inter-group Conflicts in Indonesia, CERIC (Center for Research on Inter-group Relations and Conflict Resolution, University of Indonesia). Available at http://www.indonesia-conflict.org/home.htm (accessed July 23, 2001).

Sawyer, Amos. TBA (an evaluation of conflict management techniques that are indigenous to the peoples of West Africa).

McGinnis, Michael. TBA (Tentative title: "Institutions for Conflict Management: A Framework for Analysis").

Mini-Conference : Saturday, April 27, and Monday afternoon, April 29, 2002. (Times TBA).

Back to the Workshop Homepage
Copyright 2001, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
Last updated:  January 15, 2002